- (1.) THE main point for determination in this appeal by the defendant and the cross-objection by the plaintiff-respondent is whether an order for transfer of an officer in the employment of a government company to its subsidiary company can be declared by the Civil Court as illegal, viod and inoperative, without granting any further relief to the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent was appointed to the post of assistant project Officer in the Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited in a scale of pay of Rs. 1100-50-1250-EB-1400 with an initial pay of Rs. 1200/- per month for a tenure of five years by the secretary -cum executive Officer of the Corporation by a letter of appointment dated 27. 4. 72. It was stated in that letter of appointment, inter alia, that other conditions of service of the respondent would be governed by the relevant rules and orders of the. Corporation in force from time to time and that the appointment carried with it the liability to serve in any part of India. By another office order dated 15. 5. 72, the respondent was intimated that the Chairman- cum- Managing Director of the Corporation had been pleased to appoint him as assistant Project officer with effect from 8. 5. 72, subject to ratification by the Board. In a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held or, 1. 2. 75, it was decided that the appointment of the respondent would be converted from tenure basis to regular one. This decision of the board of Directors was communicated! to the respondent on 25. 6. 75. The respondent was transferred to Calcutta Office from the New Delhi office of the Corporation on 2. 6. 76. By an office order dated 17. 1. 78, the respondent was transferred by Sri G. D. Sharma, General Manager, (Personnel and Administration) of the Corporation in his existing scale of pay of. Rs. 1300-1700, as Shift -in- Charge (Paper Machine), Nagaland pulp and Paper Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'nagaland company' for the sake of convenience) at Tuli with immediate effect. It was stated in that letter of transfer that the scale of pay of Rs. 1300. /- Rs. 1700/- would remain as personal to the respondent. The respondent submitted a representation dated 27. 1. 78 for postponing his transfer on the ground of illness of his mother and wife and complained in that representation that the transfer would cause his demotion and would block his future promotion. On 1. 0. 2. 78, there was an appeal by the Chairman-cum -Managing Director of the Hindusthan paper Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation' for the sake of brevity) in the form of a circular requesting the officers transferred to report to their new place of posting. As nothing was done by the Corporation regarding the respondent's reprsentation dated 27. 1. 78, the respondent sent another representation dated 14. 4. 78 to dr. A. Panda, Director (Technical) of the Corporation. Subsequently, on 8. 5. 78, Sri Panda informed the respondent by a D. O. letter that the respondent's letter dated 14. 4. 78 did not call for any further comments and that 'it was decided that the respondent could better be utilised in a running mill. By that: D. O. letter the respondent was relieved on 8. 5. 78 with a request to hand over the charge of papers to Sri G. P. Garg, Chief Engineer (Feasibility Studies ). The respondent preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation on 19. 5. 78 on the ground that his demotion was illegal and unauthorised. On 31. 5. 78, the respondent received a pay advice whereby" he was allowed to be paid Rs. 216. 75p. , being the salary for 8 days for the month of May, 1978. On thinking that his service had been terminated, the respondent moved this Court under article 226 of tire Constitution on 2. 6. 78. A Rule was issued by thus Court and an interim order was passed. The interim order was vacated by this Court as the Corporation submitted that the services of the respondent had not been terminated. The Rule was discharged by this Court on holding, inter, alia, that no writ lay against the Corporation, which was a government company. Subsequently, the respondent filed a title suit in the City Civil Court, calcutta. It is against the judgment and decree passed in that suit that the present appeal and the cross-objections are directed.
(3.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the orders dated 17. 1. 78 and 8. 5. 78 were void, illegal and inoperative and could not be enforced under the terms and conditions of his employment with the Corporation. The respondent prated tor declaration to this effect and for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the Corporation from giving effect to the order of transfer and the subsequent order dated 8th May, 1978. It was alleged by the respondent that the order of transfer was actually an order for his demotion,. On 21. 2. 80, the respondent prayed for amendment of the plaint by insertion of. paragraphs 10 (a) and 12 (a) in the plaint. The prayer for amendment was allowed. By making this amendment the plaitiff alleged that the Nagaland company was a different and a separate entity and had no connection with the Corporation. It was further alleged that the order of transfer was illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction as the respondent, not being an employee of. the Nagaland Company, could not be transferred by the Corporation to that Company.-;